A-4007, FEBRUARY 4, 1925, 4 COMP. GEN. 652

A-4007: Feb 4, 1925

Additional Materials:

Contact:

Edda Emmanuelli Perez
(202) 512-2853
EmmanuelliPerezE@gao.gov

 

Office of Public Affairs
(202) 512-4800
youngc1@gao.gov

WAS SOLD BY THE UNITED STATES TO A PURCHASER WHO HAD KNOWLEDGE OF THE EXISTENCE OF THE LEASE. SUCH PURCHASER IS NOT ENTITLED TO A PROPORTIONATE PART OF THE RENT ALREADY RECEIVED BY THE UNITED STATES. ANY STATEMENT MADE BY AN OFFICER OF THE UNITED STATES AFTER THE DATE OF SUCH SALE THAT A PRO RATA ADJUSTMENT WOULD BE MADE IS NOT BINDING ON THE UNITED STATES. THE LAND WAS FARM LAND BELONGING TO THE KICKAPOO INDIAN SCHOOL AND WAS LEASED TO ONE. THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE SALE WERE DULY PUBLISHED FROM JUNE 8 TO AUGUST 1. CLAIMANT'S BID WAS ACCEPTED. THE BID WAS THEREAFTER APPROVED BY THE SECRETARY ON NOVEMBER 14. AS WAS REQUIRED BY THE LEASE. WAS PAID TO THE UNITED STATES BY THE TENANT IN ADVANCE FOR THE PERIOD SEPTEMBER 1.

A-4007, FEBRUARY 4, 1925, 4 COMP. GEN. 652

SALE OF LAND SUBJECT TO LEASE AGREEMENT WHERE INDIAN SCHOOL LAND, LEASED TO A TENANT FOR A TERM OF ONE YEAR AT A RENTAL PAYABLE IN ADVANCE, WAS SOLD BY THE UNITED STATES TO A PURCHASER WHO HAD KNOWLEDGE OF THE EXISTENCE OF THE LEASE, SUCH PURCHASER IS NOT ENTITLED TO A PROPORTIONATE PART OF THE RENT ALREADY RECEIVED BY THE UNITED STATES, IN THE ABSENCE OF A STIPULATION IN THE CONTRACT OF SALE FOR THE ADJUSTMENT OF THE RENT AS OF DATE OF SALE, AND ANY STATEMENT MADE BY AN OFFICER OF THE UNITED STATES AFTER THE DATE OF SUCH SALE THAT A PRO RATA ADJUSTMENT WOULD BE MADE IS NOT BINDING ON THE UNITED STATES.

DECISION BY COMPTROLLER GENERAL MCCARL, FEBRUARY 4, 1925:

JOHN E. SULLIVAN REQUESTED, JUNE 2, 1924, REVIEW OF SETTLEMENT NO. C 14671, DATED MARCH 25, 1924, DISALLOWING HIS CLAIM FOR A PROPORTIONATE PART OF THE RENT DUE TO AND RECEIVED BY THE GOVERNMENT FROM THE TENANT PRIOR TO THE CONSUMMATION OF THE PURCHASE OF THE LAND BY THE CLAIMANT.

THE LAND WAS FARM LAND BELONGING TO THE KICKAPOO INDIAN SCHOOL AND WAS LEASED TO ONE, SCHUETZ, FOR A TERM OF ONE YEAR, ENDING FEBRUARY 28, 1923, THE RENT BEING PAYABLE IN ADVANCE, IN CASH, ON MARCH 1 AND SEPTEMBER 1, 1922. THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE SALE WERE DULY PUBLISHED FROM JUNE 8 TO AUGUST 1, 1922, AND CLAIMANT'S BID WAS ACCEPTED, SUBJECT TO APPROVAL BY THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR. THE PURCHASE PRICE HAVING BEEN PAID IN FULL, THE BID WAS THEREAFTER APPROVED BY THE SECRETARY ON NOVEMBER 14, 1922, AND PATENT ISSUED TO CLAIMANT ON JANUARY 29, 1923. THE RENT, AS WAS REQUIRED BY THE LEASE, WAS PAID TO THE UNITED STATES BY THE TENANT IN ADVANCE FOR THE PERIOD SEPTEMBER 1, 1922, TO FEBRUARY 28, 1923, AND THE CLAIMANT IS CONTENDING FOR PAYMENT TO HIM OF SUCH RENT FOR THE PERIOD SUBSEQUENT TO THE APPROVAL OF HIS BID BY THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR, NOVEMBER 14, 1922, TO FEBRUARY 28, 1923.

IN VIEW OF THE EXISTING LEASE, OF WHICH THE PURCHASER HAD KNOWLEDGE, SALE OCCURRED IN THE LIGHT OF THE TERMS THEREOF, AND IN THE ABSENCE OF A STIPULATION IN THE PUBLISHED NOTICE OF TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE SALE THAT RENT ACCRUING TO THE UNITED STATES THEREUNDER WOULD BE ADJUSTED AS OF THE DATE OF SALE, OR SOME OTHER STATED DATE, IT MUST BE ASSUMED THE BIDS WERE MADE ACCORDINGLY AND THAT A LARGER BID MIGHT AND DOUBTLESS WOULD HAVE BEEN RECEIVED HAD THE TERMS OF SALE CONTAINED A PROVISION FOR DIVISION OF SUCH RENT. THERE WAS NO STIPULATION THAT THE RENT WOULD BE ADJUSTED WITH THE PURCHASER AS OF THE DATE OF SALE, OR OTHERWISE, AND IN THE ABSENCE THEREOF, ASIDE FROM ANY QUESTION OF BEING INDIAN LANDS, THE ACCRUED RENT WAS PROPERLY PAID TO AND RECEIVED BY THE UNITED STATES PURSUANT TO THE TERMS OF THE LEASE, AND MAY NOT BE APPORTIONED TO THE PURCHASER AS CLAIMED. SEE DECISION OF JANUARY 21, 1925, 4 COMP. GEN. 622.

WITH REFERENCE TO CLAIMANT'S CONTENTION THAT THE SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS CONDUCTING THE SALE HAD STATED AT THE TIME THAT THE RENT WOULD BE ADJUSTED, AN EXAMINATION OF THE LETTERS SUBMITTED BY THE CLAIMANT IN SUPPORT OF THIS CONTENTION DOES NOT SHOW THAT THE SUPERINTENDENT HAD SO STATED AT THE SALE BUT DISCLOSES THAT HE HAD SUBSEQUENTLY EXPRESSED IT AS HIS OPINION THAT CLAIMANT WAS ENTITLED TO THE PRO RATA SHARE OF THE RENTAL ON THE LAND PURCHASED. SUCH OPINION OF THE SUPERINTENDENT CAN HAVE NO BEARING ON THE MATTER.